campaignsfandomcom-20200223-history
Campaigns Wikia talk:Single Point of View
What would happen is an article had a factual error. Would 1POV prevent the error from being corrected? If somebody posted that "Bill Clinton was a famous rapist", could that be removed or would its removal be a violation of 1POV? Lou franklin 03:07, 16 September 2006 (UTC) :Facts can be proven true or false. 1POV doesn't mean we ignore civility. With how much you have complained that this site is loaded with "liberals", we've held back on statements like this, and I would like to continue that. We don't have time to use words as weapons against each other. If you want to storm and rage, there are other places to do that. Chadlupkes 03:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC) ::Would the removal of the text "Bill Clinton was a famous rapist" be a violation of 1POV or not? Lou franklin 03:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC) :That would be slander, which is specifically mentioned in the policy. --whosawhatsis? 03:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC) ::Fair enough. What about an error that was not slander? If somebody posted something nutty like "The Clinton Administration dropped the A-bomb on Guam", could that be removed, or would 1RR prevent that? Lou franklin 03:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC) :::Facts are very important for points of view. Your point of view can be completely shot down if you have no or unreliable sources (like The Onion) to support it. Jfing[[Wikipedia:User:Jfingers88/Esperanza|'e']]rs88 17:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC) :::In an earlier draft, I had the phrase "Factual corrections, on the other hand, are always welcome," but I guess I took it out for some reason. I think it was because factual corrections can (and should) be made in a way that is not critical to the POV, as long as the article otherwise complies with the rules (see ANS), and these edits should ideally be made by someone who agrees with the thesis so that they can adjust the article accordingly, rather than creating a loophole for the opposition to sneak in "factual corrections" that are worded so as to poke holes in other arguments made under 1POV. --whosawhatsis? 19:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC) ::::I don't understand either of your answers. Would 1POV prevent factual errors from being corrected? Yes or no? Lou franklin 20:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC) :::::1POV (amended, I think) would support the correction of factual errors. Campaigns Wikia is all about getting both information and opinions out, but I think any good opinion, here or elsewhere, needs good, verifiable factual support. Jfing[[Wikipedia:User:Jfingers88/Esperanza|'e']]rs88 20:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC) ::::::Re: factual errors Ferguson 17:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC) ::::::I would hope that "factual errors" of the kind Lou is famous for correcting would be discussed on the 1POV article's talk page before correcting. If you see a factual error on a 1POV article, that issue should be brought to the discussion and let the framers of the 1POV article decide if it needs to be corrected. If what you consider to be a factual error is not corrected, that would be something to point out in an opposing 1POV article. I would even go so far as to say it's okay to hyperlink an erroneous section of a 1POV article to what you consider to be the correction. That's another discussion, though, probably.